There is the normal Izanagi, which lasts an instant, and the Izanagi enhanced by Senju cells that Danzo uses where each eye gives him 60 seconds of invincibility. You can die multiple times during that 60 seconds, the eye does not close immediately. I did state to use a Senju enhanced one.
Like I said before, I could just pull a tactic out of your book and say...
But you didn't. If you had posted that of course my Izanagi would be over by the time you did your Curse then there would be no argument. But you didn't.
Why is the current standing that I am guilty until proven innocent? We've agreed that it working is viable, and Rusaku did not post anything to the contrary. So why is he allowed to character control me because we kinda don't like the argument about time?
Remove Izanagi from the argument for a minute and pretend it is something else. Fighters A and B are having an argument and go to a judge. A is arguing that something B is doing is not possible, while B is of course arguing the opposite. However, for some reason, it is B's post. Since it is something that cannot definitively be proven one way or the other, but is agreed to at least be possible the judge decides...
#1: That B can perform his action. It is his post and nothing has been posted previously that makes his action impossible. Thus he would not be in the wrong to post what he wants.
or
#2: Because the answer of whether it can work could swing either way obviously A gets to character control B's next post and he cannot post the action he wants.
How is number two the correct choice? It could go either way so obviously me getting character controlled is the default solution? No, it isn't, that's ridiculous.
If you guys don't like the idea of Senju enhanced Izanagi actually being used to last 60 seconds IC then make a topic about making rules for it. I don't see the need for it because I don't care if someone uses Izanagi on me.
I stated to use an Izanagi that would last 60 seconds, no one made a post that it had been more than 60 seconds, it has been agreed that my Izanagi being active is possible, and there are no concrete Izanagi rules that I am contradicting. Literally everything is in my favor here and it's being ignored because "Well we don't like arguing about the passage of time." Ok good, don't, we've already agreed that I am correct. Not a single person has argued that it is not even remotely possible that my Izanagi is still active, so why am I then being character controlled into that situation which no one has claimed is legitimate? That is quite literally the opposite of what makes sense.
@Dark
many of your fights have won technicalities due to things not being stated -- such as with that Genjutsu against Trev. I believe that's the argument Alek's trying to give: if it was that way for you before, why should it not be now?
Yeah except he did not post taking advantage of something not being stated. You're agreeing that he should be able to gain an advantage granted by performing an action without actually performing that action. As I already said, if he had posted about my Izanagi being done then he'd be right, but he did not. I did not argue that Trev had not used a Genjutsu on me, I argued against extra effects that were in no way implied by his post and I believed to be unfair to impose upon me.
If the consensus was that yes it is clearly impossible that my Izanagi could still be active then this decision would make sense. But again, the consensus is the exact opposite of that.
I did state to use the 60 second version of Izanagi, at no point have I stated that the jutsu has ceased, it has been agreed that yes, it is possible for my Izanagi to still be active in this situation yet the decision is, "Ok you want to use Izanagi, it is possible that you could still be doing it, and we can't prove that you aren't sooooooooo yeah you can't use it." That is not a legitimate decision people.
There are no SL rules for Izanagi but clearly there need to be as my impression that people could handle me actually rping being under it's effects for 60 seconds IC was just expecting way too much.
"You could definitely be right, and we cannot prove that you are wrong, so you're wrong."
My vote for decision of the year, 2014. ^